Multiple entrance access

[Peter Burgess]

English Law is complicated. I am pretty sure that there are special statutes that give the Coal Authority permission to do a hell of lot without telling anyone.

In Cornwall, mines that extend out under the sea had to pay royalties to (1) landowner onshore (2) Duchy of Cornwall for stuff mined from below the area between High and Low Water marks, and (3) the Crown for stuff from below Low Water Mark.

I wonder if something similar applied to the coal mines that extended below the sea? I bet not.

 

[graham]

...
Secondly, as far as ownership is concerned in the UK if you own the surface you own the ground beneath down to the centre of the earth.

I'm not convinced by this assertion, AFAIK it is untested in a court.

If you take some large coal mines up int grim north, they go under hundreds of peoples properties. they don't ask permission!

If I owned the ground, it would be theft surely...??

Ah, but that's where ownership of the mineral rights does come in. generally you will find that all those houses are built on land that was once part of large estates and if you look at the deeds to the houses you will find that when they were sold off the mineral rights were reserved.

That does not mean that ownership of the mineral rights automatically gives you right of access unless you own other rights over the land as well. And nowadays it doesn't even give you the automatic right to extract anything - unless you can also get planning permission for your mine or quarry.

Oh and the "centre of the earth" thing is quite correct, though you'd have to ask the wife for the precise details.

 

[Pitlamp]

Not sure if this helps but in one of the early ULSA reviews (1970s I think) there was a very informative article on this very subject. If memory serves me right it was written by someone with either legal experience or who had sought a legal opinion. If you're seriously wanting to learn more about this situation it's worth getting this article out of your club library.

I thought English law was complicated so that you have to pay a legal type a week's worth of your wages for a couple of hours work to sort out your case. If the law is so complicated then how do they expect honest people not to break it?!

 

[Ouan]

If you take some large coal mines up int grim north, they go under hundreds of peoples properties. they don't ask permission!

If I owned the ground, it would be theft surely...??

Hydrocarbons (coal, oil & gas) and gold are Crown minerals, so you don't own these even if you had the mineral rights to your land. With coal mines only a few types of property, mainly railways, have a right of support and can not be undermined.

 

[graham]

I thought English law was complicated so that you have to pay a legal type a week's worth of your wages for a couple of hours work to sort out your case. If the law is so complicated then how do they expect honest people not to break it?!

Anything that has developed in an ad hoc and organic fashion for a thousand years or more is bound to be complicated.

Just ask the guys who wrote the BCA consttitution.

 

[Les W]

Anything that has developed in an ad hoc and organic fashion for a thousand years or more is bound to be complicated.

Just ask the guys who wrote the BCA consttitution.

Did the BCA constitution only take a thousand years...
...it seemed much longer

 

[AndyF]

Is there some law now about "illegal entry to a mine" - IIRC someone in N Wales was prosecuted after an accident....

How would that affect a part mine/part cave like most of the Peak District

Anyone know which legislation this came in under?

 

[Peter Burgess]

Back to the original topic, I know of sites where there are four entrances - ownership of which is divided between three landowners, two sites where there are two joint owners, one site where there there are two entrances each on different properties, another site where there are two entrances, one of which is under disputed ownership, and the other is under single ownership, and in most cases the actual underground passages are under several other people's property. The best way to manage all this is to treat each case separately, and use common sense.

 

[Peter Burgess]

Now here's a complicated scenario. The Box mines run under private property on the surface, and over an active railway tunnel. Who owns the mine workings and who owns the railway tunnel?

 

[graham]

Now here's a complicated scenario. The Box mines run under private property on the surface, and over an active railway tunnel. Who owns the mine workings and who owns the railway tunnel?

Not really that complicated at all. Whoever owns the surface owns the underground, but others may have been granted rights to (or through) the land as well. I'll bet that Railtrack, or whoever owns the rail infrastructure now, knows exactly what their rights are.

 

[darkplaces]

Surly this is all covered under tresspass laws which are rather interesting. I am informed;

Tresspass isnt a criminal offence so you can never be tried criminally for it, only civil. So 'Tresspassers will be procecuted' utter twoddle.

You must be asked to leave and if you do that is still just civil tresspass.

Only the owner or his agent (security guard) can physically remove you with resonable force.

For civil tresspass, the police cant physically remove you but if they do they do it with confidence and most likly you kaking it so you dont ask too many questions. Bit like a lot of times the police caution you for things they cant prove yet very few people argue they just accept it and get out.

Scotland doesnt have tresspass, not sure how that works but its made use off.

Trasspass only becomes criminal with agrevated trasspass were it still must be proved you broke in or damaged things or people to get in.

(source: Someone from a recent security guard course, due to the fact they all have to be registered and trained now)

DP has discussed tresspass ALOT and had all sorts of feedback as part of its group is about exploring places which involves a lot of tresspass.

 

[Mine Explorer]

Is there some law now about "illegal entry to a mine" - IIRC someone in N Wales was prosecuted after an accident....

Unauthorised entrance to working mines/quarries is covered by criminal trespass (the same as railways) other land is civil trespass. If a mine has been 'officially' abandoned (as opposed to just not being active) then it's no longer 'working' and the trespass is civil.

The case you're referring to in a North Wales slate mine occurred a number of years ago when a group were found to have been underground without the landowner's permission. (The accident, presence of emergency services etc. brought their being there to the landowner's attention!) The landowner took legal proceedings and the people concerned were fined (for civil trespass). It was reported in 'Descent' at the time.

A number of local adventure centres have since negotiated with the landowner and the mine has featured a locked gate in the grilled entrances for the past four or five years. Authorisation to visit is possible now, but previously people found their own way in without permission - the landowner didn't like that!

 

[gus horsley]

Unauthorised entrance to working mines/quarries is covered by criminal trespass (the same as railways) other land is civil trespass. If a mine has been 'officially' abandoned (as opposed to just not being active) then it's no longer 'working' and the trespass is civil.

I've heard the same. However, in Cornwall, if you extract minerals without the landowner's consent you can actually get done for piracy. Whether you would get hanged for it is another matter. I also believe that if a mine is officially abandoned the landowner cannot be sued if anything nasty happens underground. This was tested fairly recently at Wheal Jane where there was a toxic discharge from the adit. The water authority attempted to sue the mine owners but, as the mine was officially declared abandoned, the cost of the cleanup (approx £2million) came out of the public purse.

 

[Mine Explorer]

Tresspass isnt a criminal offence so you can never be tried criminally for it

Wrong!
Various places: The famous one is railway property, but also includes aerodromes, military bases and places where explosives are manufacturer and/or stored. This in itself would cover (most) working mines and quarries, but I think they get a seperate mention as well. All of these are covered by criminal trespass laws and as such you can be tried criminally for it. But in general, you are correct, unless an act specifically states otherwise, trespass is a civil offence. The difficulty comes in trying to track down what all the exceptions are (as the last xx minutes on google have shown!)

So 'Tresspassers will be procecuted' utter twoddle.

Again, not true. BUT, the crown prosecution service aren't likely to take much interest - it will fall to the individual landowner who will take you to court and be prosecuting you. This is what happened with the N. Wales Slate Mine case mentioned earlier. The landowner prosecuted those who enter the mine without permission - who were subsequently fined.

 

[Mine Explorer]

...I also believe that if a mine is officially abandoned the landowner cannot be sued if anything nasty happens underground...

Also of interest is that under section 151 of the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 there is a requirement for the owner (of the mineral rights in the first instance, but if they can not be found then the owner of the land) to secure and maintain the surface entrance to every shaft or outlet with a sufficient enclosure or other device to prevent any person from accidentally entering the outlet or falling down the shaft. This statutory duty is irrespective of whether or not the mine is accessible from a public place.

Of course this does not necessarily mean the entrances must be grilled, the requirement can be met with just a wire fence around the opening. The question is if someone distorting a stock fence by climbing over it constitutes 'criminal damage' - one for the courts methinks! (although I suspect there'd be howls of laughter before a case got anywhere near a court). Certainly if the entrances have been 'secured' well, then any attempt to gain unauthorised access would involve 'criminal damage'.

This was tested fairly recently at Wheal Jane where there was a toxic discharge from the adit. The water authority attempted to sue the mine owners but, as the mine was officially declared abandoned, the cost of the cleanup (approx £2million) came out of the public purse.

Was that incident in 1994? The law changed in around 1998/99 such that mine owners can be responsible for toxic discharges even though their mine is officially abandoned. This is one of the reasons why a number of small mines closed around that time - just prior to the introduction of the new legislation!

Talking to a friend who is minerals agent for a local council, apparently the landowner would be responsible for toxic discharges from the 'underground' section of their property. This means that if a mine entrance was discharging excessive toxic pollution then it would not necessarily be the responsibility of the landowner on whose property the entrance lies. It could be the responsibility of an adjoining landowner if the source of the toxic pollutants lay under his land. The problem arises from the fact that generally it's next to impossible to prove the pollution originates from one specific source - it's easier to work alongside, or take legal action against, the landowner on whose land the entrance lies!

 

[gus horsley]

The incident was in 1994. I didn't know the law had changed since then. That's probably why an underground treatment plant was installed around 2000. One of the problems with abandoned mines is that they generally close due to economic reasons, so they don't have sufficient money to finance a clean-up operation. Or so they would claim.

 

[Mine Explorer]

I can't find the relevant reference for England & Wales, but the Scotish version can be seen in this document. I suspect they're both pretty similar.

The potential increased cost in abandoning a mine after 1998 is why a number of smaller concerns shut up shop before it was introduced, I also think the on-going powers of the legislation only apply to mines closed after its introduction.

 

[gus horsley]

I also think the on-going powers of the legislation only apply to mines closed after its introduction.

I think that would have to be the case, otherwise there would be a legal nightmare trying to determine who was responsible for shaft capping in the late nineteenth century and trying to enforce it now.

The new laws are probably the reason why everybody keeps getting cold feet regarding the reopening of South Crofty. There's over 25 miles of adit connected to it, mostly passing through abandoned setts. I wonder if they would be responsible for the whole length?

 

[Ouan]

The Hawaii Cave Protection Law (2002) made it illegal to enter a cave without the prior written permission of the (surface) landowner or risk a fine of $11,000. This means that to traverse the 60 km long Kazumura Cave permission is required from all 4,000 landowners.

http://www.delrioabogados.com/espeleolex/hawaii.htm

 

[cap n chris]

The Hawaii Cave Protection Law (2002) made it illegal to enter a cave without the prior written permission of the (surface) landowner or risk a fine of $11,000. This means that to traverse the 60 km long Kazumura Cave permission is required from all 4,000 landowners.

What if some of them can't read or write? :wink: